Canada's recent federal election campaign was mercifully short and, inasmuch
as it was essentially a rout by Jean Chretien's Liberal Party, there is
no doubt about its outcome. Yet the divisive rhetoric and trivia that
often masquerades as campaign issues demonstrated that Canadians are not
altogether different from their neighbors to the south.

Day

There was much discussion, indeed no small amount of ridicule, of Canadian
Alliance leader Stockwell Day's beliefs about the origins of the earth
and human species. The Canadian Alliance, which resulted from a merger
between dissident Progressive Conservative Party members (the Tories are
so mushy they make the Republican Party seem like a consistent defender
of individual liberty and limited government) and the conservative Reform
Party and its strong base in the western provinces. Day, like his Reform
predecessor Preston Manning, is an evangelical Christian. As such, he
believes in creationism and rejects evolution. For this, he was roundly
denounced as an extremist.

What did this have to do with which party was better suited to run Canada?
About as much as whether Prime Minister Chretien could defend his church's
doctrine of Immaculate Conception, as Day retorted. There are scientific
objections that have been lodged against Darwinian evolution as well as
religious ones, and there are variations of creationism that differ from
the strict assertion that Genesis was intended as an all-encompassing
literal description of the planet's beginnings. In any event, Day's religious
beliefs were irrelevant and ridicule of them by those who would hold public
office is out of line. One would think that a country grappling with inefficient
bureaucracy, inexorably growing government that is slowly smothering the
private sector, high taxes and threats to national unity not limited to
separatism in Quebec would have larger issues to worry about.

Which of course isn't to say that politics are more important than whether
the Bible is true. Given the claims the Bible makes, such an assertion
would be nonsensical. But the aforementioned political issues are legitimate
objects of public concern, whereas Day's religious beliefs should primarily
be his concern. Yet this type of religious ridicule is not uncommon, nor
is it confined to Canada.

During the 1928 presidential campaign, Democrat Al Smith became the first
Roman Catholic nominee of a major political party for the presidency (Republican
John Fremont was actually an Episcopalian who sent his children to Catholic
schools in accord with his wife's preferences, and the GOP was still a
third party back in 1856). He was subjected to vituperative assaults on
his faith and its tenets, costing him the electoral votes of several usually
reliably Democratic states with large fundamentalist Protestant populations.
Among the charges leveled against him was that he would move the US capital
from Washington to the Vatican and that he was planning to build a tunnel
from New York City to Rome so he could secretly consort with the Pope.
Smith ended up losing by a decisive margin to Herbert Hoover.

Of course, the religion issue was raised again when another Roman Catholic
Democrat, John F. Kennedy, faced off against another Quaker Republican,
Richard Nixon, in the 1960 race. That election was thought to put such
issues to rest in America, when Kennedy ascended to the presidency.

Not so. The political participation of evangelical Christians has been
the subject of debate since the advent of Jerry Falwell and the Moral
Majority in the late 1970s. It has been effectively argued that these
theological conservatives are out to repeal the Constitution and impose
theocracy. It is difficult to imagine Jimmy Carter's open professions
of faith occurring today without intense criticism (and Carter's "born-again"
persona contributed heavily to the distrust of many liberals who supported
Ted Kennedy's 1980 insurgency). There was even criticism of Joe Lieberman
during this election cycle.

In 1993, evangelical Michael Farris sought the lieutenant governorship
of Virginia. Rather than debating his socially conservative positions,
he was the target of derogation and stereotyping on account of his religious
views. He was criticized for his views on dating, marriage and for home-schooling
his children. None of these things would have mattered very much if he
had been elected, nor was he proposing some policy to mandate that the
rest of Virginia adhere to his views. Farris won 46 percent of the vote,
managing to run ahead of the Democratic candidate for governor even as
he lost to a popular incumbent. But nevertheless, his defeat came as the
Republican candidate for governor, the more secular George Allen, won
by 17 points. That same year, the Washington Post characterized evangelical
Christians as "poor, uneducated and easy to command."

Without addressing the agenda of the religious right on its merits, one
must ask whether they are the only morality-legislators in society. The
fact of the matter is that all laws are reflections of the legislator's
and more appropriately the larger society's values. We fashion educational
policy on the theories of John Dewey, economic policy on the writings
of John Maynard Keynes and formulate governing philosophies on the teachings
of Gailbrath, Schlessinger and any number of other political theorists.
Surely, in Western countries provision can be made for the influence of
the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Liberals often behave as if anyone with remotely conservative views who
has serious religious beliefs is apt to launch another crusade upon assuming
office. The only saving grace for religious people in the political arena
as far as they are concerned is to wed one's theology to liberal social
action. The assumption that underlies the attacks on Michael Farris and
Stockwell Day is not simply this; it is that anyone who believes in Christian
fundamentalism must be some kind of moron. What kind of dummy can doubt
evolution? How can a great, big, grown-up parliamentary opposition leader
believe that the world was created in just seven days? What kind of rational
Canadian citizen wants Elmer Gantry to be prime minister?

If evangelical Christian equals back-woods ignoramus, then these buffoons
should not be entrusted with political power. But this is rather overwrought.
Although we may hesitate to admit it in our hyper-tolerant age, everyone
thinks that what they believe about religion is the truth and all other
beliefs are nonsense. This is true of the atheist, the Hindu, the Muslim,
the Jew, the Christian, the agnostic, the Zoroastrian, the Buddhist, the
people whose religious views defy classification. It is true of every
sect within these groups. Moreover, every one of those belief systems
contains teachings or ideas that seem outrageous, ridiculous, scandalous
or just plain odd to those who don't agree with or aren't familiar to
them. It's a plain fact.

If government were strictly limited and the rule of law was in place
to protect individuals from political usurpation, people would have less
need to be concerned about diverse religious beliefs. Government in its
proper place would impose fewer obligations and leave less room for religiously
motivated politics to curb freedom. People of faith involved in politics
would still have ample room to base policies on their values, but debate
could be centered on the substance of their proposals rather than misplaced
fears about theocracy. Ironically, by voting to continue Liberal hegemony
in Canadian government, Stockwell Day's critics prevented precisely that.

W. James Antle III is a former researcher for the Rhema Group, an
Ohio-based political consulting firm. You can e-mail comments to wjantle@enterstageright.com.